BioWare: A Dead Shepard Stays Dead
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
What the fudge is wrong with some people? all this means is (as has been said before)if your shepard died then you can't import the save of THAT shepard. so everthing THAT shepard did in me1 and me2 wont be brought over to the third game. What you get in 3 will be a fresh shepard and you'll have to answer questons that shape the background like...
Queston:
"You like blue chicks don't you shepard?"
answer:
a: no man. I'm pure homosapien!
b: yeah, they're so hot, what with those head tentacles... You know what I mean?
c: Dude, I like my girl covered up head to toe like Darth Vader...whoever he is.
d: Ewwwww. Females? I think not. I like to feel of a pair of strong manly arms around me.
That sort of thing. It doesn't mean that much really. Unless you want to use the shepard you made in the first game. In which case. WHAT THE F**K ARE YOU DOING KILLING HIM/HER OFF!?!
Queston:
"You like blue chicks don't you shepard?"
answer:
a: no man. I'm pure homosapien!
b: yeah, they're so hot, what with those head tentacles... You know what I mean?
c: Dude, I like my girl covered up head to toe like Darth Vader...whoever he is.
d: Ewwwww. Females? I think not. I like to feel of a pair of strong manly arms around me.
That sort of thing. It doesn't mean that much really. Unless you want to use the shepard you made in the first game. In which case. WHAT THE F**K ARE YOU DOING KILLING HIM/HER OFF!?!
If you do side missions instead of recruiting characters you can advance the story regardless of how many people you have recruited. (Except for the very beggining of the game where you DO need to recruit in order to get to Horizon) The game does have a sort of internal clock but it's based on the number of missions you do an not actual time passed or anything like that.Ansem1532 said:
Edit: Ok IDK whats up but quoting keeps failing for me. /shrug
I thought that was obvious? There's no way they would just magically revive Shepard a second time...
Well, considering...the protaginist said:
If you choose to blow up the base, you make Cerberus an enemy and you don't really have any other allies with the funding, ambition or technology to make the Lazarus project work, so it's not an option.
Btw people, get off Logan's nuts about the spoiler thing. Bioware practically toted the fact that you can die as one of the game's features, so it's common knowledge at this point.
In general, it's also very hard to get your Shepard killed. Pretty much it can only happen if you simply rush through the main story missions. There has been some talk on gamefaqs about it, so the possibility is overhyped.
Also, while they make better games, people should rapidly be learning to put Bioware in the same catagory as Peter Molyneux with Fable. Basically they lured people into Mass Effect with the promises of this massive, controllable story, that would change greatly based on your actions. With the possibilities in ME1 with the character being able to alter the entire balance of power in the universe, things were quite ambitious. Basically what Bioware promised was to do enough coding to make it so the sequel could be radically differant based on your desicians in the first game. In the end however what we were left with was desicians that changed a few lines of dialogue here and there. Whether you let The Council die or not in the first game forever is irrelevent because rather than seeing a humaneocentric universe no matter what happens you wind up with a NEW council being established, humanity's ambassador being more or less second rate compared to the rest of the council, and nobody believing you. The desician to save the Rakni queen involves getting *1* specific scene. When it comes to Conrad Verner, they even borked it up because the game claims my Paragon put a gun in his face (which never happened) something a lot of people on Gamefaqs are also complaining about.
Oh sure, while the technology exists to create what amounts to multiple versions of the same world, and creating multiple games within one, nobody is actually willing to put in that much effort.
What's more part of Bioware's "cop out" which was heavily discussed in certain places at the time was that they did not want to make the game too dependant on having played the first game, to avoid alienating new customers. This makes sense to be honest, but it's exactly the opposite of the attitude about these massive "OMG" desicians and the effects they were going to have.
As a result I anticipate them creating another quality sequel, that will be a lot of fun, but I do not believe that there will be anything truely major in the third game determined by actions in the second.... for the exact same reasons, they aren't going to invest the effort and money into making enough content, and in the end their going to want to avoid alienating new customers by making things too dependant on the previous games.
I think anyone who expected Shepard's death to be a big deal in the next game, with things continueing on despite this, sort of fell in for the hype. All loading screen blurbs about your desicians in ME 2 having a massive impact on ME 3 are also likely hype because honestly I can't see ME 3 being any more affect by the events of previous games than the first two.
Also, while they make better games, people should rapidly be learning to put Bioware in the same catagory as Peter Molyneux with Fable. Basically they lured people into Mass Effect with the promises of this massive, controllable story, that would change greatly based on your actions. With the possibilities in ME1 with the character being able to alter the entire balance of power in the universe, things were quite ambitious. Basically what Bioware promised was to do enough coding to make it so the sequel could be radically differant based on your desicians in the first game. In the end however what we were left with was desicians that changed a few lines of dialogue here and there. Whether you let The Council die or not in the first game forever is irrelevent because rather than seeing a humaneocentric universe no matter what happens you wind up with a NEW council being established, humanity's ambassador being more or less second rate compared to the rest of the council, and nobody believing you. The desician to save the Rakni queen involves getting *1* specific scene. When it comes to Conrad Verner, they even borked it up because the game claims my Paragon put a gun in his face (which never happened) something a lot of people on Gamefaqs are also complaining about.
Oh sure, while the technology exists to create what amounts to multiple versions of the same world, and creating multiple games within one, nobody is actually willing to put in that much effort.
What's more part of Bioware's "cop out" which was heavily discussed in certain places at the time was that they did not want to make the game too dependant on having played the first game, to avoid alienating new customers. This makes sense to be honest, but it's exactly the opposite of the attitude about these massive "OMG" desicians and the effects they were going to have.
As a result I anticipate them creating another quality sequel, that will be a lot of fun, but I do not believe that there will be anything truely major in the third game determined by actions in the second.... for the exact same reasons, they aren't going to invest the effort and money into making enough content, and in the end their going to want to avoid alienating new customers by making things too dependant on the previous games.
I think anyone who expected Shepard's death to be a big deal in the next game, with things continueing on despite this, sort of fell in for the hype. All loading screen blurbs about your desicians in ME 2 having a massive impact on ME 3 are also likely hype because honestly I can't see ME 3 being any more affect by the events of previous games than the first two.
How can you hate Shepard? I mean his/her actions are decided by the player which is you, so if you actually need to hate something hate the part of you that made Shepard an unlikable prick.tk1989 said:
Utterly pathetic, by making it so the choices you made in the first two games don't matter if Shepard dies they take away any impact that Shepard dying has at all on the series. I have no idea why they would hype the fact Shepard could die, when it really has no impact on your game experience whatsoever when you can just continue the game by playing the third one? I guess it may mean that the Reapers win in the third one if there isn't a Shepard.
I mean, just think of how cool it would be to play as a different character in the third one dealing with the choices that recently deceased Shepard made and everyone saying you're not going to be able to get the job done for you're not Shepard. =)
I mean, just think of how cool it would be to play as a different character in the third one dealing with the choices that recently deceased Shepard made and everyone saying you're not going to be able to get the job done for you're not Shepard. =)
To some, maybe it wasn't perfect. But I've hated Jack since the game revealed her, and even more so after I used her to make the biotic barrier and she failed and because of that, Garrus died. So, I reloaded my save and walked back to the Normandy over her corpse.thebobmaster said: